On 25 December, an alleged
Islamist terrorist tried to bring down yet another airliner over
America in an attempt to terrorize the public and to demonstrate our
weakness in the face of Islamist “superiority”. But for the
active resistance of fellow passengers, Umar
Abdulmutallab, may have
succeeded in terror-murdering some 300 innocent people.

In November, US Army Major
Nidal Hasan gunned down scores of fellow soldiers in an attack
that,
once again, demonstrated weakness on the part of the American
government.

Both Hasan and
Abdulmutallab were well-known to certain federal agencies tasked with
defending America from terrorist threats. In the case of Hasan,
it was his own fellow military officers who called attention to his
extremist attitude and statements. With Abdulmatallabe, his own
father personally reported his son’s radical bent to the authorities at
the US Embassy.

Both Hasan and
Abdulmatallabe were “blessed” by Anwar-al-Awlaki, an Islamist
“religious leader” currently living in Yemen and formerly sharing his
“faith” in a Northern Virginia Mosque. Hasan and Awlaki are both
American-born; Awlaki is a convert to Islam. Awlaki is a known Islamist
terrorism supporter; this alone should have been a warning flag to
intelligence officials. How many other Americans are in touch
with Awlaki, asking his “blessing” for contemplated Islamist terrorist
attacks on our country?

How did US law enforcement
miss Hasan’s very obvious radical statements; who could have missed
the warnings made by Abdulmatallabe’s father?

We didn’t.

The warnings were obvious.
The fact is that under our current laws, what could we do to prevent
these attacks from occurring? If law enforcement had confronted
Hasan, what law would they have used? If the so-called “watch
list” had been used to stop Abdulmatallabe, what would have stopped him
from crossing any of our land borders and carrying out some other
terrorist act, such as setting an oil refinery on fire or attacking a
kindergarten full of children?

What points do law
enforcement or members of the military receive for doing their
jobs? Islamist groups in the United States will automatically
protest and alert every Constitution-challenging attorney on their
rolodex immediately upon receiving word (verified or not) that any
Muslim has possibly been “abused” by authorities. While everyone
can agree that abuse under color of authority is wrong; just what
constitutes “abuse”?

News item: Three Navy
SEALs have requested courts-martial
after being charged with abusing a
Muslim prisoner. The three requested courts-martial after
refusing to accept Mast (non-judicial punishment). The three
stand accused in a "punching" incident of Ahmed Abed following his
capture in Iraq. You’d be forgiven if you don’t recall Abed; but
you’ll never forget that he was a leader in the group that hung several
contractors’ bodies on a bridge over the Euphrates River in Fallujah,
Iraq. Abed complained that he had been punched
in the lip by one
of the SEALs following his capture. How many radical Islamist
terror groups will rush to defend Abed? Stay tuned; the three SEALs have requested
courts-martial. If
the SEALs request an open trial, it will
be very interesting to
see if members of the military will convict their own over a “fat lip”.

Regarding underwear bomber
Abdulmatallabe, he was rushed and restrained by several passengers and
held for law enforcement. According to news reports, he was not
handled with kid-gloves, advised of his civil rights, nor asked
“please” or “may I help you?” when deplaning the jetliner.
Why? Why weren’t every one of the passengers and crew who dared
to touch Abdulmatallabe immediately arrested on charges of "violating"
his civil rights? Simple; the events following Abdulmatallabe’s
“apprehension” were photographed and witnessed by multitudes of
passengers and crew…these witnesses were on the very same aircraft that
Abdulmatallabe attempted to destroy. Even the very worse of the
anti-American attorneys would be hard pressed to find even one
passenger who felt that Abdulmatallabe had been “abused”.

It’s funny how the imminent
threat of death will focus the mind like no other event in our lives.
For example, privacy rights advocate Hebba Aref, a Muslim, was on
Northwest Flight 253 that day. She now clearly
understands the Jihadist threat
and stated:

"I'm
always standing up for
rights and privacy concerns, but now I hope that body scans will be
mandatory," ...."Balanced
against national security, it's worth the
invasion of privacy. And I acknowledge the fact that
there has to be
attention paid to Muslims."

The Council on
American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has been in the forefront
of the war
against the United States; it has supported Islamist terrorist
groups. CAIR has had (and may still have) Islamic terrorists on
staff. CAIR supports all manner of activities on behalf of
radical Islam that serve to weaken our country. Most revealing
about CAIR, however, is that they have run from every court case they
have pursued that questions CAIR’s background and relationship to
radical Islam.

What is it about CAIR’s
background that they cannot reveal? As proud Islamists,
CAIR’s
leadership should be happy to explain how they hate Jews, Christians,
America, republican democracy, rule of law, etc. CAIR’s entire
reason for existence can be summed up in one sentence from the Muslim
Brotherhood's 1991 Strategic Memorandum regarding its US operations:
“eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within so
that...[Islam] is made victorious over all other religions."

And yet, our government
still refrains from prosecuting CAIR, treats radical Islam and Islamic
sensibilities with excessive political correctness, and CAIR is still
quoted in the media as if it represents American Muslims. Why
this irrational fear of the truth?

What are we afraid of?

We the people seem to have
forgotten our heritage. We kicked out the British Empire, twice,
winning our independence from the strongest nation on earth at the
time; we fought two world wars to stay free and now we find our
leaders appear unwilling to stand up to a small band of foreign-funded
radicals who are committed to destroying our way of life.

ADVISORY:
Please use a
non-corporate/non-work e-mail
address if you contact CAIR or Anti-CAIR or receive our material.
CAIR
may attempt to shame your employer into terminating you if they believe
you are
receiving "objectionable" material. We make every reasonable effort
to protect our mailing list, but we cannot guarantee confidentiality.
Anti-CAIR
does not share, loan, sell, rent or otherwise publicize our mailing
list.
We respect your privacy!

TIPS: All persons are invited to
submit tips and
leads. Anti-CAIR will acknowledge receipt of all tips/leads, but
we will
NOT acknowledge the source of ANY tip or lead in our Press Releases or
on our
web site. Exceptions are made for leading media personalities at the
discretion
of Anti-CAIR and only on request of the person(s) submitting the tip or
lead.